New Delhi, Nov. 28: The Supreme Court today ruled that women in “live-in-relationships” are not entitled to maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act but expressed sympathy for such women who become victims of predatory men.

It ruled that giving relief to a woman living with a married man (as in the present case) would amount to granting legitimacy to the extramarital relationship at the cost of the man’s legally wedded wife and her children.

However, the court felt that Parliament should suitably amend the act to provide for sufficient relief for women thrown out of live-in relationships.

“A longstanding relationship as a concubine, though not a relationship in the nature of a marriage, of course, may at times deserve protection because that woman might not be financially independent, but we are afraid that the DV Act does not take care of such relationships,” the bench of Justices K.S. Radhakrishnan and Pinaki Chandra Ghose said.

“Such a relationship… may endure for a long time and can result (in a) pattern of dependency and vulnerability, and the increasing number of such relationships calls for adequate and effective protection.”

The court said that Parliament, without promoting premarital sex, “has to ponder over these issues, bring in proper legislation or make a proper amendment to the act, so that women and the children born out of such kinds of relationships be protected”.

A Calcutta-based model and a software professional, who are in live-in relationships with their boyfriends, said their situation was different from that of a married woman.

“A law is definitely welcome — any law that helps women is — but in a live-in set-up, where nothing is legal, why would you live with that person if there is domestic violence?” said the model, who has been in the relationship for four-and-a-half years.

The 32-year-old techie, living in with her boyfriend for the past two years, said: “While I believe that all citizens should be protected by the same laws irrespective of standing and status, in a live-in relationship it is relatively easier to walk out if one is being subjected to domestic violence.”

She added: “Having said that, I definitely would vote for a new law given the condition of women in our country.”

A woman, Indra Sarma, had moved the apex court challenging a Karnataka High Court verdict that had quashed a trial court’s order directing V.K.V. Sarma, a married man with children, to pay her a monthly maintenance of Rs 18,000.

According to Indra, the couple had become intimate while working at a private firm and decided to live together. She alleged that Sarma didn’t acknowledge their relationship in public nor allowed her to accompany him to social events or suffix his name to hers in documents.

The court ruled that since Indra knew — even before the relationship began — that Sarma was married, her status was “that of a concubine or a mistress” and that she had “encouraged (a) bigamous relationship”.

She had “committed an intentional tort, i.e. interference in the marital relationship (and) intentionally alienating (Sarma) from his family, i.e. his wife and children”.

This, the court said, resulted in “loss of marital relationship, companionship, assistance, loss of consortium, etc, so far as the legally wedded wife and children of (Sarma) are concerned, who resisted the relationship from the very inception”.

If the court treated the live-in relationship like a marriage, the bench said, it would be doing an injustice to Sarma’s wife and children.

So, it ruled, “any act, omission or commission or conduct of (Sarma)” in connection with the live-in relationship “would not amount to domestic violence” under the act.

“If any direction is given to (Sarma) to pay maintenance or monetary consideration to (Indra), that would be at the cost of the legally wedded wife and children,” the court said, dismissing Indra’s plea.

The court clarified that the term “domestic violence” under the DV Act did not apply to same-sex relationships.